Author
Topic: Can and should I be baptized again? (Read 30983 times)

As a former Muslim, I was baptized in the Orthodox Church in 1997, but there was no immersion (Only through pouring water). More, the language of the parish was Arabic, and the priest baptized me in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, he used the word Allah throughout the ritual of baptism, which makes me doubt the validity of my baptism now since I believe Allah to be the name of a false god and an idol worshipped by Meccan pagans prior to Islam/Mohammad. Some Christians say Allah does not exist and is a false deity (the moon god of the Meccans). Would it therefore be possible to repeat my baptism in Greek or include the names Elohim YHWH into the ritual even if I can be baptized a second time in the Arabic Church through immersion? (I mean can the priest replace the word Allah with Elohim or YHWH while giving me the sacrament?)

God speaks all languages. When I was baptized, the priest used the same terms "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" that were used in my former Protestant church, but he meant something very different than the Protestants meant. Same with your case. Allah is the generic name for God in Arabic. If it bothers you so much, you should talk with your priest about it. But don't worry; if your baptism was done canonically, it is valid. You cannot and should not be baptized again.

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

I do not speak Arabic - other than maybe a half dozen phrases learned in my English language Antiochian parish. This is as much a question as a comment. Christianity precedes Islam by several centuries. What did the Arabic Christians of those centuries call God? I would suggest that it was the Muslims who appropriated the word "Allah" for their own uses. Not unusual - Mormons and JWs use Christian terminology with heretical meanings.

"Allah" is just the generic word for God in Arabic- if you want to claim that it can only be the name of a false God, then all the Arabic speaking Christians have been worshipping a false God.

Just about all of the words we have for "God," including "God" itself, not to mention the Greek θεός, come from pagan religions.

Regarding the pouring, well, it's done frequently in many places, sometimes out of necessity, sometimes not. But while it may not have been ideal, there was nothing to make your baptism invalid. You are a baptized Orthodox Christian.

Logged

Quote

Radiates, vegetables, monstrosities, star spawn— whatever they had been, they were men!

- Lovecraft, At the Mountains of Madness

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

As a former Muslim, I was baptized in the Orthodox Church in 1997, but there was no immersion (Only through pouring water). More, the language of the parish was Arabic, and the priest baptized me in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, he used the word Allah throughout the ritual of baptism, which makes me doubt the validity of my baptism now since I believe Allah to be the name of a false god and an idol worshipped by Meccan pagans prior to Islam/Mohammad. Some Christians say Allah does not exist and is a false deity (the moon god of the Meccans). Would it therefore be possible to repeat my baptism in Greek or include the names Elohim YHWH into the ritual even if I can be baptized a second time in the Arabic Church through immersion? (I mean can the priest replace the word Allah with Elohim or YHWH while giving me the sacrament?)

Thanks for the answers.

Given that you were actually Baptized in the Orthodox Church, I would be inclined to advise against it. This is different than if you were just Chrismated.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Allah simply means "God." Muslims have no more right to that word than my worst enemy to the air we both breathe. You were baptized in the name of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I was, too, though it was in a Lutheran church back in the 1970s and in a very liberal one, mind you, where, now, any baptismal formula, as long as it's three-fold, is accepted. I was not immersed, but sprinkled. My baptism was perfected or made complete with the Mystery of Confession and then the reception of the Holy Mystery of the Eucharist. If your baptism was done in any other way save for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then you should be rebaptized. But as from what you described, you don't need to be. Getting too legalistic about it will not be a good step for your entering into the Church. FWIW.

And yet those who "apostatize" are often Chrismated again, and as such it could be deduced that the OP is not considered to be currently Chrismated. If this is the case, then why would it be unreasonable to also be Baptized as his/her return?

And yet those who "apostatize" are often Chrismated again, and as such it could be deduced that the OP is not considered to be currently Chrismated. If this is the case, then why would it be unreasonable to also be Baptized as his/her return?

How do you get that? I know of no Orthodox Church that does not Chrismate immediately after Baptism. Am I wrong about this?

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

And yet those who "apostatize" are often Chrismated again, and as such it could be deduced that the OP is not considered to be currently Chrismated. If this is the case, then why would it be unreasonable to also be Baptized as his/her return?

How do you get that? I know of no Orthodox Church that does not Chrismate immediately after Baptism. Am I wrong about this?

I think he's referring to the practice of reception of those who were once baptized and chrismated and who had since apostatized and returned to the Church. According to what I've seen, such will be received back into the Church via confession and the application of Holy Chrism to the forehead alone.

In answer to DVE's question, however, if a person has received a proper Orthodox baptism, that baptism is effective to cover the person's entire life and need not nor cannot be repeated upon return to the Church after a time of apostasy.

And yet those who "apostatize" are often Chrismated again, and as such it could be deduced that the OP is not considered to be currently Chrismated. If this is the case, then why would it be unreasonable to also be Baptized as his/her return?

How do you get that? I know of no Orthodox Church that does not Chrismate immediately after Baptism. Am I wrong about this?

I didn't suggest that they didn't. What I pointed out was that when a Baptized and Chrismated Orthodox Christian leaves the faith, they are often received back by Chrismation. That much is a fact.

What I think is a logical implication of that is that they lost the effect of Chrismation.

As a former Muslim, I was baptized in the Orthodox Church in 1997, but there was no immersion (Only through pouring water). More, the language of the parish was Arabic, and the priest baptized me in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, he used the word Allah throughout the ritual of baptism, which makes me doubt the validity of my baptism now since I believe Allah to be the name of a false god and an idol worshipped by Meccan pagans prior to Islam/Mohammad. Some Christians say Allah does not exist and is a false deity (the moon god of the Meccans). Would it therefore be possible to repeat my baptism in Greek or include the names Elohim YHWH into the ritual even if I can be baptized a second time in the Arabic Church through immersion? (I mean can the priest replace the word Allah with Elohim or YHWH while giving me the sacrament?)

No! Do not grieve the heart of God (Allah). Even though pouring is not ideal, this is fine and is an ancient practice. You must not forsake your Orthodox baptism over your linguistic hangups. The Protestants who say such things are ignorant and you must not follow their error in this area.

As a former Muslim, I was baptized in the Orthodox Church in 1997, but there was no immersion (Only through pouring water). More, the language of the parish was Arabic, and the priest baptized me in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, he used the word Allah throughout the ritual of baptism, which makes me doubt the validity of my baptism now since I believe Allah to be the name of a false god and an idol worshipped by Meccan pagans prior to Islam/Mohammad. Some Christians say Allah does not exist and is a false deity (the moon god of the Meccans). Would it therefore be possible to repeat my baptism in Greek or include the names Elohim YHWH into the ritual even if I can be baptized a second time in the Arabic Church through immersion? (I mean can the priest replace the word Allah with Elohim or YHWH while giving me the sacrament?)

Thanks for the answers.

Theophilos,

First, I think Greeks dont use immersion, but rather pouring.

Second, I was baptized Lutheran without immersion and received through Chrismation as per the long-held Russian tradition, and which was also the original practice for receiving noncanonical Christians.

Third, the words father son and holy spirit dont have the word Allah,

fourth, in Russian, the word for God is Bog, and this could have a pagan origin (like "Allah"), but it's still the word in services. "Services" BTW are "Bogosluzheniya"

Fifth, the word Allah might have the same root as El (God). Elohim is a plural, anyway, I think.

You should be good.

Logged

The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

If Holy Orthodoxy condemns or did in the past and some do in the present, condemn Catholics from sprinkling ,how can we justify using it....This Is Confusing .....Is It a Change introduced by the ecumenists.......

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

If Holy Orthodoxy condemns or did in the past and some do in the present, condemn Catholics from sprinkling ,how can we justify using it....This Is Confusing .....Is It a Change introduced by the ecumenists.......

No, no. I think this way is allowed for in the Didache, but correct me if I'm wrong.

"Allah" is just the generic word for God in Arabic- if you want to claim that it can only be the name of a false God, then all the Arabic speaking Christians have been worshipping a false God.

I have an Orthodox friend who says it is high time the Church convened a council to forbid the use of the word Allah in Christian liturgy and Bible.

Allah does not actually mean God in Arabic, but is used as the name of the supreme deity. The Arabic word that corresponds to the English word God is ILAH rather than Allah. This is why we say "true GOD from true GOD" while reciting the Nicene Creed in English, and this line is translated as "ILAH haq min ILAH haq" into Arabic rather than "Allah haq min Allah haq".

I cannot do that because the priest who baptized me reposed in the Lord last year. (Memory eternal).

Now I am no more in the city where I received the holy mysteries. In my new place there is a small Greek Church that opens occasionally (once in a while). The priest that mostly comes to celebrate the divine liturgy does not speak English. I cannot speak Greek. This is why it is almost impossible for us to communicate and talk about this serious issue. More, even if the Greek priest said that I needed to be baptized again, the second baptism would not be easy as the Greek Church here will never baptize converts from Islam in my country. (We must leave the country and receive baptism in another place due to the problems between the EP and the government).

Yes, but the Biblical readings and the Nicene Creed had the word Allah. I did not utter that word throughout the ritual though. Even the Nicene Creed was recited in Arabic by a deacon on my behalf as I could not and cannot speak Arabic.

If Holy Orthodoxy condemns or did in the past and some do in the present, condemn Catholics from sprinkling ,how can we justify using it....This Is Confusing .....Is It a Change introduced by the ecumenists.......

No, no. I think this way is allowed for in the Didache, but correct me if I'm wrong.

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. (Didache chapter 7 from newadvent encyclopedia).

I have an Orthodox friend who says it is high time the Church convened a council to forbid the use of the word Allah in Christian liturgy and Bible.

Well... that's really dumb. Should we ban the use of the word "God" because, once upon a time, it was used to describe Wotan and Thor? Should we ban "Theos" because it used to refer to Zeus?

Quote

Allah does not actually mean God in Arabic, but is used as the name of the supreme deity. The Arabic word that corresponds to the English word God is ILAH rather than Allah. This is why we say "true GOD from true GOD" while reciting the Nicene Creed in English, and this line is translated as "ILAH haq min ILAH haq" into Arabic rather than "Allah haq min Allah haq".

"Allah"= contraction of "Al" and "Ilah" = "the God". It is the Arabic name for the one true God.

Logged

Quote

Radiates, vegetables, monstrosities, star spawn— whatever they had been, they were men!

- Lovecraft, At the Mountains of Madness

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Well... that's really dumb. Should we ban the use of the word "God" because, once upon a time, it was used to describe Wotan and Thor? Should we ban "Theos" because it used to refer to Zeus?

Or even Elohim, which was used for other Mesopotamean deities, not just the God of the Jews.

I agree entirely. If we ban all words with pre-Christian or non-Christian origins, what's left?!? Even technical terms that were coined to express specifically Christian concepts like "trinity" are based on earlier roots.

Don't speak on a subject you're not authorized to speak on, my friend. Greeks immerse when possible, pouring only when immersion is not possible or advisable. Example of "not possible:" when baptizing an adult in a parish that only has a font designed for children. Otherwise, immersion is done.

As for the OP: There is no "baptized again:" you were either baptized or not - if you weren't, then you must be batpized, and if you were, then you shouldn't force an empty ceremony which could lead to the priest's being defrocked and your being excommunicated. IMO, based on the info you've provided, you were baptized, so don't fret any longer.

Don't speak on a subject you're not authorized to speak on, my friend. Greeks immerse when possible, pouring only when immersion is not possible or advisable. Example of "not possible:" when baptizing an adult in a parish that only has a font designed for children. Otherwise, immersion is done.

Do these parishes not have rivers around them?

Can they not invest in a cheap rubber horse trough until they can afford a properly gold-guilded opulent baptistry?

Seriously though, I would assume that perhaps pouring is necessary in more arid regions, or in the winter when local bodies of water are frozen, but the idea that a parish has to pour out of necessity because they "only have a font for babies" seems a bit ridiculous to me.

Seriously though, I would assume that perhaps pouring is necessary in more arid regions, or in the winter when local bodies of water are frozen, but the idea that a parish has to pour out of necessity because they "only have a font for babies" seems a bit ridiculous to me.

From my experience of Greek churches, when full immersion is not possible (whatever the reason may be), water is nonetheless poured over the whole body rather than simply sprinkled on the head.

Can they not invest in a cheap rubber horse trough until they can afford a properly gold-guilded opulent baptistry?

Really, that's your solution? Bring a horse trough in? Please tell me that is a joke. You bring a horse trough into my church, and you'll get the same response as someone bringing in an inflatable kiddie pool - right out the door with you.

Seriously though, I would assume that perhaps pouring is necessary in more arid regions, or in the winter when local bodies of water are frozen, but the idea that a parish has to pour out of necessity because they "only have a font for babies" seems a bit ridiculous to me.

I guess it's a good thing you're not in a position to make decisions about baptisms, then, since a real problem seems "ridiculous" to you. Every parish should have an adult font; I've seen some with large above-ground fonts, and a few with walk-in fonts. But not every parish has one (especially since 95%+ of baptisms are performed on children), so the issue of "what to do with an adult baptism" becomes a real and serious question, not one to be confronted with dirty streams and horse troughs.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Really, that's your solution? Bring a horse trough in? Please tell me that is a joke. You bring a horse trough into my church, and you'll get the same response as someone bringing in an inflatable kiddie pool - right out the door with you.

Don't knock the horse trough. Some parishes do use one. I wasn't baptized in one, but I was baptized in a big metal basin that was intended for livestock. If it's a choice between using these or pouring, I don't see why the horse trough isn't preferable, aside from a knee-jerk "but that's for horses!" reaction that has no bearings on the vessel's actual suitability.

Logged

Quote

Radiates, vegetables, monstrosities, star spawn— whatever they had been, they were men!

- Lovecraft, At the Mountains of Madness

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Really, that's your solution? Bring a horse trough in? Please tell me that is a joke. You bring a horse trough into my church, and you'll get the same response as someone bringing in an inflatable kiddie pool - right out the door with you.

My parish uses a giant rubber tub. I'm scheduled to be dunked in it this Saturday, actually. Full immersion is preferable to pouring, as undignified as it might seem to those who require all baptismal fonts to made of precious metals and rubies. If pretense is more important than being faithful to tradition, then count me out.

I guess it's a good thing you're not in a position to make decisions about baptisms, then, since a real problem seems "ridiculous" to you. Every parish should have an adult font; I've seen some with large above-ground fonts, and a few with walk-in fonts. But not every parish has one (especially since 95%+ of baptisms are performed on children), so the issue of "what to do with an adult baptism" becomes a real and serious question, not one to be confronted with dirty streams and horse troughs.

Good, so just so we're clear, all of our streams are so dirty that baptisms become unsafe. Or are you just afraid of looking like the Baptists? None of them seem to be emerging from the water with a third arm.

And you're so above the "ridiculous" banter, with your circumlocutions decrying kiddie-pools in a dignified Greek Orthodox church. Give me a break.

Can they not invest in a cheap rubber horse trough until they can afford a properly gold-guilded opulent baptistry?

Really, that's your solution? Bring a horse trough in? Please tell me that is a joke. You bring a horse trough into my church, and you'll get the same response as someone bringing in an inflatable kiddie pool - right out the door with you.

Both my wife and I were baptized a year apart in a galvanized horse trough by the ROCOR. And, it was brought into the Church each time for that purpose. Where there is a will, there is a way.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Would it therefore be possible to repeat my baptism in Greek or include the names Elohim YHWH into the ritual even if I can be baptized a second time in the Arabic Church through immersion?

No. Any priest or bishop that did so would be deposed, according to Apostolic Canon 47.

Your Baptism was performed within and accepted by the Holy Orthodox Church. Period. You have also been sealed by Holy Chrism and are a communicant of the Holy Eucharist. You are an Orthodox Christian. Period. Full stop. There can be no further question.

Any doubts to the contrary are temptations from the devil, distracting you from the real work of salvation.

If you need further encouragement about the acceptability of your baptism, just read Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council and Canon 95 of Trullo. According to these holy canons, even the baptisms of Arians, Nestorians, and Monophysites are acceptable to the Church. How could yours, performed by a canonical Orthodox priest, with the blessing of a canonical Orthodox bishop, not be?

Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

Really, that's your solution? Bring a horse trough in? Please tell me that is a joke. You bring a horse trough into my church, and you'll get the same response as someone bringing in an inflatable kiddie pool - right out the door with you.

Both my wife and I were baptized a year apart in a galvanized horse trough by the ROCOR. And, it was brought into the Church each time for that purpose. Where there is a will, there is a way.

As much as I find the use of an animal feeding device in a Church to be distasteful, I would prefer galvanized over rubber any day. If it works for them, then may the Lord always bless it!

My parish uses a giant rubber tub. I'm scheduled to be dunked in it this Saturday, actually. Full immersion is preferable to pouring, as undignified as it might seem to those who require all baptismal fonts to made of precious metals and rubies. If pretense is more important than being faithful to tradition, then count me out.

Congratulations on your upcoming Baptism! As to rivers, ours are a bit muddy, but I would have no problem being dunked in one. I have gone swimming in much worse. If you want Baptized in the Platte, you may have to look a bit to find a hole deep enough. The joke is that the river is a mile wide and a foot deep. As to "running" water, the Missouri runs mighty fast up here. I don't think is slows down too much where you are.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Really, that's your solution? Bring a horse trough in? Please tell me that is a joke. You bring a horse trough into my church, and you'll get the same response as someone bringing in an inflatable kiddie pool - right out the door with you.

Good, so just so we're clear, all of our streams are so dirty that baptisms become unsafe. Or are you just afraid of looking like the Baptists? None of them seem to be emerging from the water with a third arm.

Holy things for the holy, my friend. If I lived by an ocean, I'd consider that a venue, but the rivers are frequently too polluted. We should use the best things available to us - clean tap water over dirty water, etc. It's not about safety, "3rd arms," etc.. Baptisms should be done in Churches, anyway - who am I to break the standard practice of the last 16 centuries?

And you're so above the "ridiculous" banter, with your circumlocutions decrying kiddie-pools in a dignified Greek Orthodox church. Give me a break.

Maybe I'll give you a break after Saturday. Until then, you're enrolled in the catechumenate and deciding to state, "the idea that a parish has to pour out of necessity because they "only have a font for babies" seems a bit ridiculous to me," - a bad sign, if you ask me. I try to consider myself above the "ridiculous" banter - alas, though, I've heard of people bringing kiddie pools in Churches, and unfortunately have seen an Orthodox baptism on the "big screen" portrayed with the use of the kiddie pool (and a godmother oogling her godson to boot!). Considering this, I figured it would be an easy example of something people are familiar with, and which some people would consider acceptable, that I would make a parallel to from my POV on "what's appropriate to use for baptisms."

No dunking on this Saturday allowed, if we are to follow the practices of the early church. Baptism may only occur on Pascha, Pentecost, or (in the East) Theophany, the only exception being if you are about to die.

Also, just as an aside, there's reason to believe that "living water" referred to what one would get in a miqveh (ritual Jewish bathtub) or an equivalent Greek or Roman bath house. The early Christian baptisteries we have were built on top of Roman baths, complete with plumbing.

Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

Can they not invest in a cheap rubber horse trough until they can afford a properly gold-guilded opulent baptistry?

Really, that's your solution? Bring a horse trough in? Please tell me that is a joke. You bring a horse trough into my church, and you'll get the same response as someone bringing in an inflatable kiddie pool - right out the door with you.

Both my wife and I were baptized a year apart in a galvanized horse trough by the ROCOR. And, it was brought into the Church each time for that purpose. Where there is a will, there is a way.

No dunking on this Saturday allowed, if we are to follow the practices of the early church. Baptism may only occur on Pascha, Pentecost, or (in the East) Theophany, the only exception being if you are about to die.

Also not most of the Twelve Great Feasts, nor censers, nor elaborately embroidered vestments, et cetera. I think the point you were making is that the triple immersion is not absolute; and that pouring is OK. I don't disagree, I was just saying that everything ought to be done to do a full immersion if possible.

Can they not invest in a cheap rubber horse trough until they can afford a properly gold-guilded opulent baptistry?

Really, that's your solution? Bring a horse trough in? Please tell me that is a joke. You bring a horse trough into my church, and you'll get the same response as someone bringing in an inflatable kiddie pool - right out the door with you.

Both my wife and I were baptized a year apart in a galvanized horse trough by the ROCOR. And, it was brought into the Church each time for that purpose. Where there is a will, there is a way.

If Holy Orthodoxy condemns or did in the past and some do in the present, condemn Catholics from sprinkling ,how can we justify using it....This Is Confusing .....Is It a Change introduced by the ecumenists.......

We're not talking about sprinkling. Sprinkling means taking something like a whisk and flinging droplets of water onto the initiates head. Pouring is actually taking something more like a pitcher and pouring down volumes of water onto the person. The former hasn't really been addressed. The latter has been approved by some very ancient documents, at least in the case where immersion is not reasonably possible.